[Child of the 7th Age]

This is a fascinating topic, Esty .

There are two things that come to my mind that suggest somewhat of a "flip side" or at least a slight addendum for this equation of "wandering=good." I'm not quite sure how to put these things in words, but I think there are other layers of meaning in this equation.

First, Tolkien makes a point of saying that the place where you start from is almost as important as the wandering you do. And there is also the question of exactly why you are wandering and whether you started out "voluntarily" or not. I'll deal with the voluntary aspect first and then go on to the other.

Here I'm referring specifically to the journey of Frodo and Sam to Mordor and how Gollum fits into this equation. In the case of Frodo and Sam, the going out on the road is not an unequivocal good. Frodo is motivated by the fact that there is a job that must be done. Whether or not he wants to do the job (i.e., to go out on the road) is not the central point. The fact is that there are clear moral choices in life, and sometimes that moral choice points someone towards the outside world. Turning down that choice can mean you have taken the lesser moral path that may eventually lead to something even worse. (Others have noted that the contrast between Saruman and Gandalf can also be seen this way.)

Yet one of the things that strickes me in LotR is how much Frodo does not want to leave the Shire. He dillies and dallies as long as he can to delay the inevitable departure. (We have had threads on this before.) As Bilbo says to Gandalf early in the story, Frodo is not ready to leave, although he might have come to Rivendell if his uncle had asked him. Overall, though, and in contrast to Bilbo, Frodo is someone who would rather have stayed home and enjoyed the benefits of Bag-end. Strange, but I don't get this same sense of reluctance from any of the other hobbits who set out from the Shire. Sam is excited about seeing Elves, and Merry and Pippin seem bound up in the whole idea of being with friends and going on an adventure. Of course, none of them realizes the seriousness of their path to the same extent that Frodo does.

In a sense Frodo is more like Gollum. Both Gollum and Frodo were "forced" to leave home. It was not a totally free choice on their part. The reaction of Gollum's neighbors to his increasingly nasty behavior impels him to flee the community. Frodo was also forced to leave home by external developments that he could not control. Is there any significance in the fact that both of these characters do not leave wholly of their own volition? Both grow on the trip, although obviously Frodo grows more than Gollum, and both are eventually "defeated" by their journey. Gollum dies, and Frodo is forced to wander even further from the place where he wants to be. The reader feels pity for Frodo and even to some extent for Gollum, despite all the latter's misdeeds.

But there's another definite contrast between Frodo and Gollum: the place they are coming from. Of course, I am speaking spiritually as well as physically. Several times in his Letters, JRRT makes the point that what makes the trip bearable to Sam and Frodo is that they can remember where they've come from. They know why they are on the road, even if they don't much like what is happening to them. One of the chief examples of this is that Sam sits and thinks about Rosie and going to the swimming hole as a young lad. The same is true for Frodo. As long as the Ringbearer can hang on to his identity and community (i.e., the Shire), he is alright. When he loses this, he is in serious trouble. Indeed, one of the most poignant moments in the tale for me is when Frodo confides to Sam that he can no longer remember the Shire.

Gollum, by contrast, has lost his identity and community right from the start. He has nothing to remember. It is only when he comes into contact with Frodo (someone who is also trying to hang on to his hobbit identity) that he begins to get snatches of these things back again. In the end, however, it is not enough to save him.

So where does this contrast leave us. It seems that you must throw into the equation of "good=road" a number of other things. Are you leaving of your own volition, and are you able to hang onto your identity and community inside your head? If not, change may overwhelm you, and the road can become a potential agent for destruction as well as for good. I can't help but personalize this. I have come a long, long way from where I grew up as a kid. I am physically distant, and my choices in life have taken me on some different paths than those my family took. Yet, as much as I believe I made the right choices, I fight fiercely to retain that part of me that still has one foot in my childhood. I also wonder how Frodo fared once he got to Tol Eressea? Surely, a big part of his healing was the need to regain his original self and somehow integrate that with what he had now become.

************

Davem -

I also have some thoughts about the question of wandering in terms of the "Sea". When Elves wander over the Sea, they reach a place where, to tbe best of my knowledge, nothing ever changes. Ironically, it seems like the place to end all wandering: to negate the orginal equation. From my perspective, the Blessed West looks too "static". Presumably things would be peaceful without any conflict, so how would you have any real change at all? Isn't it Galadriel's dream realized: mummifying the present?

I guess what I am asking is this. Is the end result of wandering to reach a place where you no longer wander, or is it to reach a place from which you can wander even further? Of couse, the West only pertains to Elves and misplaced hobbits like Frodo. The hard thing is that we don't know what happens to man when he goes beyond the circles of the world. Any thoughts here?